DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/19/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that heater 134 of Lee is not configured to heat the nozzle plate 130 but is rather insulated therefrom by the insulating layer 131a and therefore does not disclose the limitation of a nozzle plate heating part adjacent to the nozzle plate and configured to heat the nozzle plate.
Lee discloses a heater 134 for heating ink integrally formed on a lower surface of the nozzle plate wherein the heater pattern may be formed to uniformly heat the entire surface of the nozzle plate 130 (Paragraphs 0053, 0063). Further Lee discloses since the heater 134 is uniformly arranged throughout the lower surface of the nozzle plate 130, ink inside the print head, i.e., inside the ink flow path, can be heated more uniformly (Paragraph 0064). Lee states the nozzle plate surface and the ink in the flow path [which includes the path through the nozzle plate 130] will be heated uniformly to enhance the printing quality. Regarding the insulating layer 131a insulating the nozzle plate, clearly at least a minimum amount of heat will reach the nozzle plate surface and the ink flow path in order to heat the ink inside the print head (Paragraphs 0015, 0053, 0062-0064)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 7, 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lee (U.S. 2005/0190232)
Regarding claim 1, an ink jet head comprising: an ink supply part (104, 102, 105) configured to supply an ink (Figure 4; Paragraph 0054)
A nozzle plate (130) connected to the ink supply part and having a nozzle configured to drop the ink provided from the ink supply part (Figure 4; Paragraphs 0053-0054; 0061-0063)
A nozzle plate heating part (134) adjacent to the nozzle plate (nozzle plate is integrally formed with the heater 134) and configured to heat the nozzle plate [the heater 134 may be formed in any pattern that can uniformly heat the entire surface of the nozzle plate 130] (Figure 4; Paragraphs 0062-0063)
An insulation member (insulating member 131b) between the nozzle plate (130) and the ink supply part (104, 102, 105) (Figure 4; Paragraph 0061)
Regarding claim 7, wherein the nozzle plate heating part comprises a heater on one surface of the nozzle plate (Figure 4; Paragraphs 0062-0063)
Regarding claim 11, wherein the nozzle plate heating part comprises: electrode terminals electrically connected to the nozzle plate; and an electrode control part configured to apply power to the electrode terminals (Paragraphs 0058-0063)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 14-15, 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamashita (U.S. Pub. 2007/0273719) in view of Lee (U.S. 2005/0190232)
Regarding claim 14, an ink jet printing apparatus comprising: a stage (platen) configured to receive a substrate thereon (Paragraph 0029)
An ink jet head configured to drop ink on the substrate; a reservoir configured to store the ink (Abstract; Paragraphs 0036)
Lee discloses: the ink jet head comprises: an ink supply part configured to be supplied with the ink from the reservoir (Abstract; Paragraph 0054)
A nozzle plate (130) connected to the ink supply part and having a nozzle configured to drop the ink provided from the ink supply part (Figure 4; Paragraphs 0053-0054; 0061-0063)
A nozzle plate heating part (134) adjacent to the nozzle plate and configured to heat the nozzle plate [the heater 134 may be formed in any pattern that can uniformly heat the entire surface of the nozzle plate 130] (Figure 4; Paragraphs 0062-0063)
An insulation member (insulating member 131b) between the nozzle plate (130) and the ink supply part (104, 102, 105) (Figure 4; Paragraph 0061)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Lee into the device of Yamashita, for the purpose of heating ink to a uniform temperature (Paragraph 0013)
Regarding claim 15, further comprising a pressure actuator in the ink supply part and configured to vibrate the ink in the nozzle (Abstract; Paragraphs 0006, 0011)
Regarding claim 18, Lee discloses wherein the nozzle plate heating part comprises a heater on one surface of the nozzle plate (Figure 4; Paragraphs 0062-0063)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Lee into the device of Yamashita, for the purpose of heating ink to a uniform temperature (Paragraph 0013)
Claim(s) 6, 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (U.S. 2005/0190232) view of Ueda et al (U.S. Pub. 2015/0158300)
Regarding claim 6, Ueda discloses it is known in the art to use one of glass and silica fiber in the insulation member (Paragraph 0032)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Ueda into the device of Lee, for the purpose of providing high insulation
Regarding claim 13, Lee discloses the nozzle plate comprising a conductive material (Paragraphs 0062-0063)
Ueda discloses it is known in the art to use one of glass and silica fiber in the insulation member (Paragraph 0032)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Ueda into the device of Lee, for the purpose of providing high insulation
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (U.S. 2005/0190232) in view of Paschkewitz (U.S. Pub. 2015/0273849)
Regarding claim 10, Paschkewitz discloses it is known in the art to use an induction heating device having a coil (Abstract; Paragraphs 0003-0004; 0032)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Paschkewitz into the device of Lee, for the purpose of achieving precise heating
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (U.S. 2005/0190232) in view of Sim et al (U.S. Pub. 2021/0332256)
Regarding claim 12, Sim discloses ink comprising at least one of a light emitting element, a conductor metal particle, and a light conversion particle, and wherein the light emitting element comprises a first semiconductor layer, a second semiconductor layer, and an active layer between the first semiconductor layer and the second semiconductor layer (Abstract; Paragraph 0156)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Sim into the device of Lee, for the purpose of improving product reliability
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamashita (U.S. Pub. 2007/0273719) as modified by Lee (U.S. 2005/0190232) and further in view of Paschkewitz (U.S. Pub. 2015/0273849)
Regarding claim 19, Paschkewitz discloses it is known in the art to use an induction heating device having a coil (Abstract; Paragraphs 0003-0004; 0032)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Paschkewitz into the device of Yamashita as modified by Lee, for the purpose of achieving precise heating
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-5, 8-9, 16-17, 20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON S UHLENHAKE whose telephone number is (571)272-5916. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:00 am - 5:00 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Douglas X. Rodriguez can be reached at (571) 431-0716. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JASON S UHLENHAKE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853 July 2, 2026
Prosecution Insights